Justice Vivek Agarwal, Justice Devnarayan Mishra, Madhya Pradesh High Court
Well-Planned Cold-Blooded Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction Of Chemistry Teacher Accused Of Killing Her 65-Yr-Old Husband
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the onus was on the accused to have proved that for what reason, she was residing separately and for what reasons, she decided to cohabitate with her husband about 10 months prior to the date of incident.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of an elderly female chemistry teacher who was accused of killing her 65-year-old husband by electrocution in the year 2021.
The accused namely Mamta Pathak filed an Appeal before the Jabalpur Bench under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, which convicted her for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra observed, “Thus, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nankaunoo versus State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), it is though submitted by the appellant that there was no intention, therefore, the case is liable to be converted into one under Section 304 of the IPC but fact of the matter is that the manner in which things were planned and executed, blurs the difference ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’. It appears to be a well planned cold blooded murder where benefit of aforesaid judgment cannot be extended in favour of the appellant.”
The Bench said that the onus was on the accused to have proved that for what reason, she was residing separately in Peptech colony and for what reasons, she decided to cohabitate with her husband about 10 months prior to the date of incident.
Senior Advocate Surendra Singh and Advocate Kapil Pathak represented the Appellant/Accused while Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma represented the Respondent/State.
Case Background
As per the prosecution case, the Appellant-accused had given merg intimation at the police station which was registered under Section 174 CrPC with regard to the death of her husband. The merg was investigated by the Sub Inspector and in pursuance of merg investigation, the crime details were prepared. The postmortem report was collected from the doctors and it was found that in the opinion of post-mortem doctors, the husband of the accused die due to electrocution. An FIR was registered against the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The objects like sleeping pills, electric wire, DVR from the CCTV camera installed in the house of the deceased, footage from the CCTV containing view of the house, the video recording, etc. were seized. The Additional Sessions Judge found the charge proved against the Appellant and convicted her.
Challenging her conviction, she was before the High Court. The Appellant submitted that she was falsely implicated in the case and was having very cordial and loving relationship with her deceased husband. She further submitted that she was working as a Lecturer in Government College at Chhatarpur while her husband was the Chief Medical Officer in Government District Hospital. She also contended that it is not possible to differentiate between antemortem and postmortem electrical burns referring to the Essentials of Forensic Medical and Toxicology, 35th Edition by K.S.Narayan Reddy and O.P.Murty Page No.256. It was her argument that the distinction between electric burn mark and thermal burn mark is not possible and the same can only be made by acro reaction and scanning electron microscopy from the deposition of metal particles into the skin/tissue but no such attempt was made.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “All the issues with regard to closed mouth, non-conduct of chemical examination, absence of electron microscopy to find out deposition of metals onto the skin/tissue, the house being wholly insulated and there being no possibility of competition of the circuit etc. are not made out to support the case of the appellant and, therefore, the aforesaid contentions made by the appellant deserve to and are hereby rejected.”
The Court remarked that the cardio vascular disease was not the cause of death but the cardio vascular failure resulting from electric shock was the cause of death of Dr.Neeraj Pathak and, therefore, the fourth issue is also answered in negative that Dr.Neeraj Pathak did not die of cardio vascular disease but because of cardio vascular failure or suffocation due to shock.
“Appellant's contention that she was a best mother for her children as sought to be demonstrated through a Greeting Card sent by her children on her birthday is not a sufficient circumstance to take away the motive because a person may be a 'doting mother' but may also be a 'suspecting wife' at the same time and unless any evidence is brought on record to show that there was not only an element of cordiality but relationship between husband and wife was of great faith and understanding and merely on suggestion of the appellant, the motive cannot be removed from the acts of the appellant”, it added.
The Court further noted that the Appellant thought tried to shift the burden but has not discharged her own burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that she was not residing in Peptech Colony separately as is alleged by the witness.
“Firstly, it is an admitted fact that the house in which the incident took place is of Dr.Neeraj Pathak. Admittedly, the aforesaid house was jointly shared by Smt.Mamta Pathak and her son Nitish Pathak at the time of the I incident. Thus, when there was no external movement to the house and admittedly, the appellant had seen her husband on 29.4.2021 at about 9:00 PM as admitted by her in the Merg Intimation and had found that his pulse was not functional, her conduct of not reporting the matter to the police and travelling to Jhansi on the pretext of undergoing dialysis and not contacting any doctor at Jhansi as is admitted by Driver Ratan Singh Yadav (PW.12), who had taken her to Jhansi, and thereafter giving a memorandum by Smt. Mamta Patak vide Exhibit P/14 and thereafter recovery of electric wire at her instance by Jagatpal Singh (PW.14) so also recovery of the strip of Olanzapine Tables out of which four tables were found to be empty, the presence of Olanzapine in the viscera material (Exhibit P/21) of Dr.Neeraj Pathak and coupled with the testimony of Dr.Mukul Sahu (PW.1) that Dr.Neeraj Pathak was electrocuted, leaves no iota of doubt that firstly, there was no trespassing to the house of Dr. Neeraj Pathak”, it also observed.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that minor discrepancies in the investigation are not sufficient to defeat this case. It added that it was the Appellant alone, who for the reasons best known to her was not keeping good terms with her husband, tortured him to death firstly by serving seductive drug and thereafter passing electric current and since all the circumstances in the chain are complete, the guilt of the Appellant is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
“Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.6.2022 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.84/2021 convicting the appellant Smt.Mamta Pathak, W/o.Late Dr.Neeraj Pathak for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be faulted with”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal, convicted the Appellant, and directed her to immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the remaining part of the jail sentence.
Cause Title- Mamta Pathak v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:34674)